GIRJABAI WALMIK KATKADE THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER WALMIK EKNATH KATKADEversusMUKTUM SOPAN KATKADE THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER NAMDEO MUKTUM KATKADE AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:40006

                                                 (1)                 WP 4220 of 2023.odt


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                WRIT PETITION NO. 4220 OF 2023

                 Sau. Girjabai W/o Walmik Katkade,
                 Age: 75 Years, Occup: Household,
                 R/o: Katkarwadi, Ta. Gangakhed,
                 District Parbhani

                 Through Power of Attorney Holder
                 Mr. Walmik S/o Eknath Katkade
                 Age: 77 Years, Occup: Agril.,
                 R/o: Katkarwadi, Ta. Gangakhed,
                 District parbhani                                  ...PETITIONER

                 VERSUS

           1.    Muktum S/o Sopan Katkade,
                 Age: 80 Years, Occup: Household,
                 R/o: Katkarwadi, Ta. Gangakhed,
                 District Parbhani

                 Through Power of Attorney Holder
                 Mr. Namdeo S/o Muktum Katkade
                 Age: 54 Years, Occup: Agril.,
                 R/o: Katkarwadi, Ta. Gangakhed,
                 District Parbhani

           2.    Registrar General (Money Lenders)Va
                 Special Registrar, Co-operative Societies,
                 Maharashtra State, Pune

           3.    The Divisional Joint Registrar (Money Lenders)
                 @ Divisional Joint Registrar,
                 Co-Operative Societies, Aurangabad
                 Division, Aurangabad

           4.    The District Joint Registrar (Money Lenders)
                 @ District Joint Registrar,
                 Co-Operative Societies, Parbhani
                 District Parbhani                                ...RESPONDENTS
                                                   (2)                                WP 4220 of 2023.odt


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Akash Rodge h/f. Mr. Mahesh Kale, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. S. N. Kendre, AGP for Respondent Nos.3 and 4 – State
Mr. Yogesh K. Bobade, Advocate for Respondent No.1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              CORAM                        : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                              RESERVED DATE                : 31.08.2026
                              PRONOUNCED DATE: 02.09.2026

JUDGMENT :-

.       Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 08.01.2023 passed

by the Registrar (General) / Additional Commissioner and Special Registrar,

Co-operative Societies, Maharashtra State, Pune in Revision No.73 of 2019,

the Petitioner has filed the present petition.


2.      Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Considering the short controversy

involved in the petition, I heard learned Advocates for the respective parties

for final disposal.


3.      Facts in Brief :


(a)     On 19.05.2003, Respondent No.1/original complainant executed a

registered sale deed bearing No.2098 of 2003 in favour of the Petitioner in

respect of agricultural land admeasuring 28 R out of Gat No.164 situated at

Mouje Katakarwadi Post Badavani Taluka Gangakhed District Parbhani for

valuable consideration.
                                      (3)                      WP 4220 of 2023.odt


(b)   The Respondent No.1 thereafter filed Complaint/Appeal No.25 of 2016

before the District Registrar under the provisions of the Maharashtra Money-

Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 (for brevity, “the Act”) for taking action

against the Petitioner.


(c)   In nutshell, it was alleged that since the complainant was facing

financial difficulties, he executed the registered sale deed bearing No.2098 of

2003 in favour of the present Petitioner against the money lent by the

Petitioner to him.


(d)   It was further contended that the transaction was not a sale transaction

in toto, however, it was a conditional sale transaction. Subsequently, the

Petitioner started cultivating the said agricultural land under the garb of the

sale deed and therefore, the complainant realised that the Petitioner had taken

undue advantage of the alleged sham sale deed.


(e)   The complainant further alleged that the Petitioner was involved in the

business of illegal money-lending and had got a number of sale deeds

executed by conducting such business. Therefore, the complaint came to be

filed and action was sought against the Petitioner.


(f)   The authority issued notice to the Petitioner and conducted an enquiry

corresponding to Section 18(1) of the Act and Rule 17 framed thereunder.

Accordingly, a report came to be submitted by the designated Enquiry Officer
                                       (4)                     WP 4220 of 2023.odt


@ the Co-operative Officer, Class-I.


(g)   The record revealed that no money-lending transaction could be seen to

have occurred between the parties. The parties were given an opportunity to

place their respective contentions on record and to make submissions with

regard to the enquiry report produced before the authority.


(h)   At the conclusion of the enquiry, the concerned authority opined that

the complainant could not prove the allegations against the present Petitioner

nor was it revealed in the enquiry that there was any element of illegal

money-lending involved in the subject matter transaction between the

Petitioner and the Respondent No.1. As such, the complaint came to be

dismissed on 23.08.2016.


(i)   The Respondent No.1 carried the said order in Appeal No.6 of 2017

before the Divisional Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Aurangabad.

The First Appellate Authority heard the parties, re-assessed the evidence and

arrived at the conclusion that the complainant could not establish the contents

of the complaint. Resultantly, the appeal came to be dismissed vide order

dated 28.05.2018.


(j)   It appears that Respondent No.1 thereafter preferred Writ Petition

No.11396 of 2018 before this Court. However, recording that there was a

statutory remedy available under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Money-
                                      (5)                      WP 4220 of 2023.odt


Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014, the petition was permitted to be withdrawn

to enable Respondent No.1 to exhaust the said remedy by filing a revision.


(k)   Accordingly, Respondent No.1 filed Revision No.73 of 2019 before the

Registrar (General) / Additional Commissioner and Special Registrar, Co-

operation, Maharashtra State, Pune.


(l)   The Revisional Authority heard the parties. However, observing that the

complainant could not get an adequate opportunity of hearing, the revision

application was partly allowed. Both the orders passed by the authorities

below were quashed and set aside and the matter was remitted to the

Appellate Authority for re-hearing. The said order dated 08.01.2023 is

impugned in the present petition.


4.    Submissions :


Per Mr. Akash Rodge h/f. Mr. Mahesh Kale, learned Advocate for the

Petitioner:


(a)   Learned Advocate for the Petitioner would submit that both the

authorities namely the first authority as well as the Appellate Authority have

assessed the evidence available on record. The Respondent No.1 failed to

prove the factum of money-lending at the hands of the Petitioner.
                                      (6)                      WP 4220 of 2023.odt


(b)   It was never the case of Respondent No.1 that anything prevented him

from producing evidence in support of his case. Therefore, the Revisional

Authority was not justified in observing that the Respondent No.1 was not

given a full and adequate opportunity of hearing. Hence it is submitted that

the writ petition deserves to be allowed.


Per Mr. Yogesh K. Bobade, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1 :


(a)   Learned Advocate for the complainant/Respondent No.1 would rely

upon the reply affidavit. His main thrust of the argument is that there were

several instances indicating that the Petitioner was involved in illegal money-

lending transactions.


(b)   He would submit that the Petitioner was in fact engaged in illegal

money-lending transactions and that the documents placed on record would

themselves demonstrate the involvement of the Petitioner in such transactions.

It is further submitted that the enquiry report referred to in the order passed

against him was never supplied to the complainant nor the documents

showing illegal money-lending transaction by the Petitioner are considered by

the authorities.


(c)   He would further submit that, in view of the above circumstances, the

principles of natural justice were not followed and the complainant must be

given an opportunity to prove his contentions.
                                     (7)                       WP 4220 of 2023.odt


Per Mr. S. N. Kendre, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent

Nos.2 to 4 :


(a)   Under the directions of this Court, learned Assistant Government

Pleader has filed reply affidavit on behalf of Respondent Nos.2 to 4 under the

signature of Ms. Surekha Eknath Phupate serving as District Deputy Registrar,

Co-operative Societies, Hingoli.


(b)   The contention of the complainant are denied that no opportunity of

hearing was offered to him. It is also denied that copies of any document or

report was not served upon the complainant. However, the reply affidavit

supports the order passed by the Revisional Authority. It is submitted that

Respondent No.4 would re-open the matter and conclude the hearing within

the stipulated time.


5.    Consideration :


(a)   I have heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties as also the

learned Assistant Government Pleader at length.


(b)   The complaint was filed by Respondent No.1. It was for Respondent

No.1 to prove his complaint by producing on record such documents in respect

of his complaint which will show that the Petitioner was involved in the

business of illegal money-lending.
                                      (8)                       WP 4220 of 2023.odt


(c)   The first authority has categorically observed that a full opportunity of

hearing was given to the complainant and an enquiry was conducted, the

report of which was made available to the complainant. There was nothing on

record even remotely indicating that the sale deed was not a sale deed in toto,

but was a conditional sale deed. There was also nothing on record to show

that the complainant had repaid the entire amount of the sale consideration

together with interest to the Petitioner and thereafter requested him to revert

back the loan in his favour. Observing the aforesaid circumstances, the first

authority rejected the complaint.


(d)   Needless to record, the first authority further observed that the copy of

the sale deed produced by the complainant did not contain the name of the

Petitioner therein. On this count, the Appellate Authority also declined to rely

upon the said sale deed.


(e)   So far as the alleged violation of the principles of natural justice is

concerned, the Appellate Authority recorded that the record showed that every

opportunity of hearing was given to the complainant. There was nothing to

indicate that any document or report was not served upon the complainant.


(f)   The Appellate Authority recorded its findings after re-assessing the

evidence on the basis of which the original order was passed. Pertinently, even

before the First Appellate Authority, the complainant did not adduce any
                                      (9)                        WP 4220 of 2023.odt


independent evidence in support of the allegations contained in the complaint

and on which in the present petition, Respondent No.1 seeks to place reliance.


(g)   In the revision petition, the Revisional Authority remitted the matter to

the Appellate Authority only on the ground that there was no cross-

examination of the witnesses to the registered sale deed. Respondent No.1 is a

carrier of the litigation. The entire burden is on him to prove his complaint.


(h)   So far as the documents on which reliance was placed are concerned, it

was for Respondent No.1 to prove the same by examining appropriate and

cogent witnesses. It is not the case that Respondent No.1 had ever applied for

summoning or cross-examining the witnesses to the sale deed and such

opportunity was denied to him.


(i)   In the absence of any such application or request from Respondent

No.1, the authorities were not expected to call any person as a witness and

examine such person for the purpose of proving the case of Respondent No.1.

The failure on the part of Respondent No.1 to take appropriate steps to prove

his case cannot be treated as a reason to remand the matter for a fresh

exercise of hearing.


(j)   Respondent No.1 cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own

wrong. Much thrust is given by the learned Advocate for Respondent No.1 on

the contention that the enquiry report was not supplied to the complainant.
                                      ( 10 )                    WP 4220 of 2023.odt


However, the recitals in the orders passed by the first authority as well as the

Appellate Authority show that the complainant was made aware of the said

report and was afforded an opportunity to deal with the same.


(k)   It appears that Respondent No.1 had ample opportunity to prove his

complaint. The best course available to Respondent No.1 was to produce on

record affidavits of those persons who were parties to the sale deeds in respect

of which allegations of illegal money-lending were made against the

Petitioner. No such exercise was undertaken.


(l)   Secondly, so far as the sale deed executed between the Petitioner and

Respondent No.1 is concerned, apparently there is nothing to indicate that it

was a transaction of illegal money-lending.


(m)   Thirdly, nothing prevented Respondent No.1 from filing an application

before any of the authorities for summoning the witnesses to the sale deeds

for the purpose of proving the factum of alleged illegal money-lending at the

hands of the Petitioner.


(n)   It is also necessary to consider the sale deeds relied upon by Respondent

No.1 to demonstrate the alleged involvement of the Petitioner in illegal

money-lending transactions.
                                     ( 11 )                   WP 4220 of 2023.odt


(o)   Sale deed bearing No.1842 of 1998 dated 30.04.1998 registered before

the Sub-Registrar, Gangakhed is relied upon by Respondent No.1 to show an

instance of an alleged illegal money-lending transaction. However, the name

of the present Petitioner does not appear as a vendee therein and the name of

one Laxmibai is shown as the vendee. Thereafter, another sale deed bearing

No.1238 of 1999 registered on 05.04.1999 before the Sub-Registrar,

Gangakhed is also placed before this Court. The said document also shows a

vendee other than the present Petitioner.


(p)   Another sale deed bearing No.1515 of 2000 is also placed before this

Court, wherein the Petitioner’s name does not appear in any capacity. The

same is the position in respect of the sale deed bearing No.2680 of 2004 dated

04.06.2004 wherein also the name of the Petitioner is absent. Similarly, in

respect of the sale deed bearing No.1246 of 2007 as well as the sale deed

bearing No.2354 of 2018 the name of the Petitioner does not appear.


(q)   Thus, even upon considering the sale deeds on which Respondent No.1

has placed reliance to demonstrate the alleged illegal money-lending

transactions at the hands of the Petitioner, it does not appear that the

Petitioner was a party to those transactions. It is contended by the

complainant that the vendee named Laxmibai in those instruments and the

present Petitioner are one and the same person. However, there is nothing on

record to accept such a bare contention. Even otherwise, none of the
                                       ( 12 )                   WP 4220 of 2023.odt


documents relied upon by Respondent No.1 as observed above show that the

Petitioner was involved in any illegal money-lending transaction.


(r)   In view of the above, the finding of the Revisional Authority that the

complainant was not given an opportunity of hearing appears to be

misconceived. In the circumstances, I am convinced that the Petitioner has

made out a successful case for interference by this Court. I agree with the

submissions advanced by Mr. Rodge, learned Advocate for the Petitioner that

the re-hearing as is ordered by the Revisional Authority before the First

Appellate Authority would amount to nothing but an unnecessary re-opening

of the proceedings and an abuse of the process.


(s)   In the given circumstances, and since the matter pertains to allegations

of illegal money-lending, I have cautiously examined the findings recorded by

the first authority as well as by the Appellate Authority. I find that the

impugned order is not justifiable for the reasons recorded therein.

6.    Hence I pass following order :

                                  ORDER

      I.    The Writ Petition is allowed.

      II.   The impugned judgment and order dated 08.01.2023

      passed by the learned Registrar (General) / Additional

      Commissioner and Special Registrar, Co-operative Societies,
                                      ( 13 )                  WP 4220 of 2023.odt


      Maharashtra State, Pune, in Revision No.73 of 2019

      (Exhibit-J), is quashed and set aside.

      III.   Consequently, the order dated 28.05.2018 passed by the

      First Appellate Authority stands restored.

      IV.    Rule is made absolute in the above terms.




                                                   [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]
PRW